Tag Archive for: Donald Trump

London’s Muslim Mayor wants to Educate Donald Trump on Islam by Hugh Fitzgerald

/in , , , , , /by

TrumpMuslimBan-65%The new golden boy of multicultural politics and Moderate Islam, Mayor Sadiq Khan of London, fresh from his electoral triumph, told an interviewer on May 13 that he would like to “educate” Donald Trump about Islam. Certainly Trump, like many of those who oppose him, could stand to be educated about Islam, but what he needs to know is not what Sadiq Khan surely has in mind. Sadiq Khan plans for his tutorial a few innocuous verses from the Qur’an that are always trotted out by the “moderates”: 2:256 and 5:32 without 5:33 (we’ll be getting to them later on). He also no doubt plans to offer Trump a potted history of Islam’s conquests, and a sanitized version of Muhammad’s biography, that will leave out as much of the gory bits as he, Sadiq Khan, thinks he can get away with omitting. And a good time will be had by all, if by all we mean Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio. It won’t do.

It is not that Trump has been misinformed, but that he has not been sufficiently informed to do more than speak in dismissive generalities about Islam. He knows there is something worrisome about Islam, and thinks – sensibly – that it might be a good idea to put a stop to Muslim immigration “until we figure out what is going on.” Who could disagree? Well, apparently a great many of those people who, knowing so little about Islam, assume they know all they need to know, and believe there is nothing more to “figure out” – they could and do disagree with the “islamophobic” Donald J. Trump.

Now instead of softening his previous statements by re-labelling them as “suggestions,” Trump might have held off and done what Muslims fear most, which is to educate himself, and without their “help,” about Islam. He’s a combative sort, and were he to put in hours of study of the canonical texts (and Robert Spencer has published a verse-by-verse exegesis, Blogging the Qur’an, that Trump would find most useful) – and not allow himself to be scared off by the usual claims, e.g., that non-Muslims simply can’t understand the Qur’an because they don’t know Arabic, or can’t interpret a verse or a Tradition (Hadith) correctly unless they know the “context,” the results could be salutary and bracing. Imagine that Trump, fortified with his new knowledge, came out from his corner quoting, able to clarify for his rapt audience what the Qur’an contains, and what the Hadith are, and why both matter to Muslims as sources of authority. Imagine a Trump able to explain how, through the interpretative doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, Muslims are able to reconcile contradictory passages in the Qur’an by abrogating the earlier, “softer” verses in favor of the later, more uncompromising verses. Imagine a Trump who could focus attention (and he now garners far more attention than any other candidate) on a few dozen or so of the most disturbing “Jihad verses” that are cited by ISIS and other terrorists as the textual justification for their behavior. When ISIS smites the necks of the Infidels, its killers are not silent; they tell us they are simply following 8:12 and 47:4 (or other relevant verses for other atrocities). In lieu of uttering general and sometimes vague remarks, Trump can locate his worries in specific verses. “Until we figure out what is going on,” while reasonable, is not as forceful as “so, we need to take a look at those verses Muslim killers keep quoting, such as 8:12 and 47:4 and 9:5 and 9:29 – lemme just read out some of these to you…(here Trump quotes Qur’anically ad libitum).” Trump could force the issue, and brusquely deal with the expected excuses: “Yeah, somebody told me because I don’t know Arabic I can’t really understand these verses, but 80% of the world’s Muslims don’t know any Arabic – and no one says that they can’t possibly understand Islam” or “Don’t go telling me these verses can only be understood in a particular historical context — Muhammad is the ‘perfect man’ (al-insan al-kamil) for all time.” I cannot imagine any candidate except Trump daring to hold up for inspection Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, or Muhammad’s expression of pleasure at hearing of the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak. But he needs to learn, and be ready to deploy in his forthright fashion, these facts and more. This would enrage Muslims, and other defenders of the faith, precisely because Trump would be adducing those biographical episodes (about little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Battle of the Trench, the poetess Asma bint Marwan, the sex slave Safiyya bint Huyayy) that Muslims, however much for granted they take these things, also know that among the Unbelievers such “details” could be a source of deep embarrassment.

Sadiq Khan, now sensing that Trump is on the defensive (having re-characterized his blunt remarks as “suggestions”), will likely have the chutzpah to continue to insist that “Islam” means “peace.” He will certainly quote 5:32, possibly even as it appeared in Obama’s 2009 remark: “Mr. Trump, perhaps you’ve forgotten – even though your own president Barack Obama quoted verbatim – what the Koran says about killing at 5:32. He said, and I quote, ‘The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.’” But then Trump, properly prepared, could come back immediately with: “Hey, you forgot 5.33. Remember? Here it is: ‘The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.’ That doesn’t sound so peaceful to me.”

And there is still that other Qur’anic verse always trotted out in defense of a kinder, gentler Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2.256). Imagine Sadiq Khan quoting that staple of Muslim propaganda with smug assurance, convinced that Trump will not have ready a Retort Plausible. And imagine what Trump’s reply could be if he has been properly prepped about the Jizyah: “Oh no, Sadiq? You think the Jizyah-tax is nothing? What if everyone in Europe had to pay 50,000 euros a year in order to stay alive and avoid having to convert to Islam? Just how many people do you think would pay the 50,000 euros? Come on! If that isn’t ‘compulsion,’ I don’t know what is.” What could Sadiq suavely respond?

Sadiq Khan, his smooth front now furrowed, may want to wait a while for a rematch. He’s got a lot on his plate, determined as he is to show those doubting Infidels how moderate he is, and Islam, too, if rightly understood. He’s planning a trade mission to Tel Aviv, which presumably is meant, in its obvious “some of my best friends” way, to signify that all those charges of Muslim antisemitism are baseless. And he’s certainly got to make time to reply to his many well-wishers, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Bill de Blasio, and so many others whose congratulations are also self-congratulations.

As for Donald J. Trump, hope that he burns the midnight oil, with Qur’an and Hadith and the right guides to both, in order that he might put his combativeness, and even his studied outrageousness, as imagined here, to their best and highest use.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Danish professor: Wrong to see Muslims as victims, they act according to the Qur’an

Petraeus calls for self-censorship to avoid offending Muslims

From Proposal to Policy: Fine-Tuning Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban by Ralph Sidway

/in , , , , , /by

“In light of [the] data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis… Let’s adapt Trump’s plan and put a moratorium on Sunni immigration.”

This policy discussion by Islamic historian Timothy Furnish may seem to run counter to the position of those of us who believe a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the heck is going on” is the proper approach, but it is at the very least a serious attempt to undergird Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban with factual and functional analysis. Serious discussion leads to serious policy, and serious results. Let’s have this discussion.

“An Islamic Historian’s Response to Donald Trump’s Proposed Muslim Immigration Ban”, by Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, May 13, 2016:

Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslim immigration to the US, floated last December, provoked a predictable firestorm of criticism both domestically and abroad, and recently the presumptive Republican nominee for President has moved to moderate his stance.

Many if not most on the Left have not only dismissed his idea out-0f-hand, but condemned it as “racist,” while many on the Right support it. Contra the political extremes of both Left and Right, however, I think Trump has a point, if the plan were fine-tuned. Some Muslims should probably be banned (which almost certainly would be legal), but not all; and to differentiate those categories requires honest research and analysis, not emoting and propaganda.

The starting point for this evaluation is whether adherents of the world’s second-largest faith are more prone to violence than those of other religions.

Far too many liberals, and most Muslims of course, vehemently deny any such connection. But facts are stubborn things.

Of the 59 groups currently on the US State Department foreign terrorist list, 41, or 69%, are Muslim. Every single one of the 82 groups on the United Arab Emirates’ terrorist list is Islamic. (Does that make the UAE “racist” one wonders?) There are 104 groups on the database of the University of Chicago Project on Security & Terrorism (CPOST), which tracks terrorism between 1982 and 2015; at least 80 of the groups therein, or 77%, are Muslim. Twenty-one of the top 25 groups whose members killed people in that same time-frame are Muslim. Also, in that 33-year period, suicide attacks by Muslims far outnumber those Christians, by 300:1. Yes, there was exactly one suicide attack by a Christian in the 33 years that CPOST has tracked the data.

For more historical analysis of this topic, may I suggest my latest book Sects, Lies, and the Caliphate, as well as anything written by Raymond Ibrahim—in particular “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” and “ ‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More Bloodthirsty than Quran.”

The historical and empirical evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: Islam promotes violence against those not in its club (which, yes, often includes those who claim to be Muslims, as well) far more than any other belief system does against non-adherents.

But as the howls of “Islamophobia” begin to rise, let me add that not all branches of Islam are equally culpable for this global problem.

As I argue at length in my aforementioned book (especially pp. 193-209), it is primarily Sunnism—the largest branch, alas—that promotes a literalist reading and application of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (the alleged sayings and practices of Islam’s founder, Muhammad). This means that canonical Islamic endorsement of beheading, stoning, and violent jihad, inter alia, must apply across space and time; they are not subject to, say, allegorical interpretation or chronological consignment to the 7th century AD.

And such Sunni literalism has sunk deep roots: majorities of Muslims in many countries (according to Pew empirical data) support stoning for adultery and execution for “apostasy” (converting from Islam to another religion). This is why I said on a recent TV special that ISIS is indeed Islamic, and why it is so difficult for other Muslims to actually delegitimize it. 

However, wooden and, frankly, brutal Sunni literalism—which holds sway not only in terrorist groups but also in broader movements like Saudi Wahhabism and South Asian Deobandism—it is not the only understanding of Islam.

There are minority sects of Islam which do not take the Qur’an 100% literally and are thereby not yoked to slavish imitation of the texts, with all their problematic repercussions: the Ahmadis of South Asia; the Isma’ilis, the second-largest Shi`a sect; the syncretistic Alawis and Druze of Syria and Lebanon; many Sufi, or Islamic mystical, orders (which are actually not sects so much as, in a sense, charismatic Muslims); and, believe it or not, the Twelvers—the Shi`is of Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Azerbaijan—who unlike the Sunnis never abandoned ta`wil, or “(allegorical) interpretation” of the Islamic texts.

All of these groups are, to varying degrees, persecuted by Sunnis in most places for their heterodox—if not downright heretical—views, at least from the Sunni perspective.

Note, I am not saying all sects are peaceful and Sunnis are always vicious. What I am saying is that Sunnis and their theology are far more often the problem, because a literal understanding of Qur’an and Hadiths is the only one allowed therein; sects, even Twelver Shi`is, allow for much more leeway in interpretation.

Consider: only two of the groups on the US State Department list adduced earlier are Twelver Shi`i; ditto for the CPOST terrorist list. There are no examples of Ahmadi, Isma’ili or Alawi terrorists (although Alawis, in the guise of the al-Assad regime, do hold on brutally to power—largely in order to stave off the inevitable religicide that would ensue were they to lose to the Syrian Sunni jihadists). Twelver Shi`i Iran is a state sponsor of mainly Sunni terror, but in order to geopolitically hobble its enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, not out of Twelver theological imperatives. Sufis can and have been violent in the past and today (they fight Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia), but only one Sufi group—Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshbandi, which works with ISIS—is terrorist today.

In light of this data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis.

But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite.

Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. In April of this year another 451 Syrians were brought in, almost all Sunni. (And not being covered in this article is the criminally-low number of Christians being admitted—under 1%.)

Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred—not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

Video: Muslim speaker in Canada calls for “full implementation of Islam,” says migrant influx helps build caliphate

Virginia Congressman and 9 Jewish organizations want to block Trump’s Muslim ban

/in , , , , , , /by

Rep. Don Beyer represents the Virginia district just across the river from Washington, D.C. and has a large number of Muslim constituents.  More on the story here.

From Daily Sabah:

Don Byer

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). Photo: ABC News

Nine Jewish organizations have joined a call supporting a bill that would prevent banning entry to the United States on the basis of religion, a step taken after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

“Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants,” said the statement released Tuesday, a day before Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., is due to unveil the legislation.

The groups expressed their support for a bill announced by Virginia congressman Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) Wednesday that would make it illegal for the US to block an immigrant based on his or her religion.

The statement backing Beyer’s bill was organized by Interfaith Alliance, a group directed by Rabbi Jack Moline and include umbrella bodies for the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women, J Street, Habonim Dror, Bend the Arc Jewish Action and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.

Beyer, a Democrat of course, is a first term Congressman.

Once the Hijra is advanced, and the Muslim population reaches a certain level in the U.S., guess which religion will be persecuted first?

Captain America battles the United Nations in Marvel film ‘Civil War’

/in , , , , /by

spectre film james bondThere is a growing anti-collectivist theme in Hollywood films which is counter intuitive given the political leanings of those producing, directing and staring in them.

The film Spectre staring Daniel Craig has James Bond battling the “new world order (NWO).” A new world order where national sovereignty is passe and spying on everyone in the name of the collective is the new normal. Sophia Stewart from PC Magazine asks, “Can Bond survive an Orwellian dystopia where spy skills don’t count anymore and no one orders a dirty martini?”

Stewart wrote, “Spectre is a psychological battle between the old guard, the dying embers of British diplomacy, when the cut of a man’s suit, a gun, an accent and the right passport were all a chap needed to break hearts and rule empires, and the new world of surveillance networks analyzed by machines.”

Spectre is all about human operatives going after the enemies of the state (in this case including the state itself) and the growing concern about computer surveillance of everyone (including James Bond himself) by a global network controlled by the unelected bureaucrats, i.e. the NWO.

The latest Marvel film Captain America: Civil War has a similar theme. In Civil War political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability when the actions of the Avengers lead to collateral damage. The new status quo deeply divides members of the team. Captain America (Chris Evans) believes superheroes should remain free to defend humanity without government interference. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) sharply disagrees and supports oversight. the debate escalates into an all-out feud.

captain america civil war posterThe Daily Signal’s Daniel Woltornist in his column “The Conservative Lessons of ‘Captain America’” writes:

Here’s the gist of the movie—the free market does something well and the government comes in to “fix” it. And—shockingly—the government wrecks everything.

[ … ]

But before you know it—the U.N. is knocking at the Avengers’ front door telling them that they aren’t doing a good enough job staving off world catastrophes like alien invasions and complete annihilation.

To force the Avengers to do their job better, the “Sokovia Accords” are signed by 117 countries to put the Avengers under U.N. jurisdiction. This is a great idea because when aliens invade next, let’s have the U.N. debate if the Avengers should fight the alien invasion.

If it turns out anything like regular U.N. deliberations, the Avengers would never be used again because Russia or China negotiated a backroom deal with the aliens so that they would be global governors in the new alien world order.

Presented with the Sokovia Accords, the Avengers are split between those who want to maintain the status quo and those who wish to effectively handcuff the organization with regulation.

Read more.

Sound familiar? It should because this has become the Obama administrations policy. To render America’s national security to the United Nations. This policy was best summed up by Secretary of State John Kerry at the commencement ceremony at Northeastern University. Kerry said:

For some people, that is all they need simply to climb under the sheets, close their eyes and push the world away. And shockingly, we even see this attitude from some who think they ought to be entrusted with the job of managing international affairs.

The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist in any case. You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.

This statement rings of the nostalgia of James Bond and Captain America for a Great Britain and United States of America who were the beacons of the free world, battling the evil empire (former Soviet Union).

Donald Trump embraces an America First foreign policy. Is Trump like James Bond and Captain America?

Donald Trump made a major foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. to a gathering of The National Interest Magazine, and its parent institution, The Center for the National Interest. Trump first laid out why America’s current foreign policy has failed. He then outlined his “America First” foreign policy.

Trump stated that U.S. foreign policy under President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had, “No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy.”

trump as captain america

Trump as Captain America from Facebook.

Trump then set the his vision, purpose, direction and strategy for an “America First” foreign polity:

  1. America is going to be strong again.
  2. We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.
  3. I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win.
  4. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.
  5. Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.
  6. In the Middle East our goals must be, and I mean must be, to defeat [Islamic] terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change.
  7. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. Remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
  8. Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests.

Is Trump’s Make America Great Again mantra shared by those in Hollywood? Looking at the latest Hollywood feature films, one would believe so. Is Hollywood getting ready for a Trump presidency? Time will tell.

London’s Muslim mayor pledges to help Hillary beat Trump

/in , , , /by

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in America take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun.” How absolutely grand. The hard-Left routinely derides those who are concerned about jihad terrorism for their “fear,” as if being afraid of being murdered by Islamic jihadis were some kind of character defect. Very well. They elected Sadiq Khan, and Hillary Clinton may well be elected also by campaigning against “fear,” and we will all march unafraid into our glorious multicultural future. Including, of course, Islamic jihad terrorists.

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain - 11 Oct 2012

“Sadiq Khan pledges to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump,” by Jon Stone, The Independent, May 12, 2016:

Sadiq Khan has offered to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump – pledging his successful campaign as a “template” to hers.

Mr Khan, the new Mayor of London, said he had successfully beaten the Conservatives’ “Donald Trump approach” to elections in last weeks’ vote.

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in American [sic] take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun,” he told reporters at the capital’s City Hall, according to the Politico website.

He said he was planning to travel to the US before the end of the year due to the threat of Mr Trump’s proposed policy of banning all Muslims from traveling to the US.

Mr Khan’s election has attracted interest from around the world on account of his election as the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city.

Mr Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential candidacy, commented on Mr Khan’s election by saying he would make an exception for him to visit the US.

But Mr Khan rejected the offer. “The idea of making an exception for me because I’m the Mayor of London demonstrates how little they understand,” he said.

Like failed Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, Mr Trump has been accused of running a “racist” campaign by singling out people for travel bans on account of their faith.

Mr Goldsmith was accused of using “dog whistle” tactics to repeatedly draw attention to Mr Khan’s Muslim faith – as well as attempts to link him with Islamic extremists….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim “Sharia patrols” terrorize Copenhagen bars in “Sharia zone”

Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”

This Is Why Republicans Continue to Lose the Black Vote

/in , , , /by

I am now beginning to question whether there is room for Blacks in this Republican Party. The recently ended Republican primary tells me the answer is “no,” but when party leaders are questioned about it, the answer is always “yes.”

Between the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Campaign Committee (NCCC), all the state parties, all the 527 political action committees, the Republican Governor’s Association, etc., there are about fifty Black staffers that I am aware of and probably upwards of 90 percent of those work for a member of congress, thus most Republican entities have no Black staffers, advisors, or consultants.

Republicans will counter that Blacks are an insignificant part of primary voters (about 2 percent), which is factually true, but that should not prevent the hiring of Black staffers, advisors, or consultants during this process.

Implicit in this bogus argument is that Blacks should only be hired to engage with the Black community. I totally reject this approach. As a matter of fact, if a campaign has a limited budget, they are better served by hiring a Black staffer over a White staffer.

Blacks, out of necessity, are forced to live in two worlds simultaneously. We have to be able to live and function within the Black community (where most of us live); but we must also be able to navigate the white community (where most of us work).

Most whites could not navigate the Black community effectively since most have absolutely no relationship within the community. So, by hiring a Black staffer, you get a two-fer. I find this an extremely compelling reason to hire a Black staffer.

To my utter and total dismay, every Republican presidential campaign other than one gets a failing grade on the issue of Black staffers.

You never hear the few Black Republicans who have a media platform talk about the lack of Black staffers within every level of the Republican Party. They are too caught up waiting for the proverbial pat on the head from their overseers.

You rarely, if ever, see them take a principled stand against the party when it comes to the invisible Black man.

You see them on CNN mouthing all the words they are told to speak and not bringing light to a party that is lurking in the dark.

According to the Gallop, “almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. Only 5 percent of Blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.” This means about 29 percent of Blacks label themselves as “Independent.” In business, this 29 percent is called a “target market.”

Did we really need an autopsy report after the 2012 election to tell us what needed to be done to diversity our party? This was a cheap political stunt to give the party cover, because they didn’t really want to address the reality starring them in the face.

In typical Republican fashion, they appointed two minorities, one Black and one Hispanic, as co-chairs (the other three being Whites) of the committee. Then they had a White as the national face of the report who did most of the media interviews after the report was released.

This little fact is exhibit “A” in how Republicans just don’t get it. Why would they not have the Black and Hispanic as the face of the report to engage with the media? Duh!

Even when they try to do the right thing, they do it the wrong way.

The one person who understands these issues is the one person the Republican establishment tried to defeat, Donald J. Trump. He constantly talks about engaging with the Black community, he constantly talks about how illegal immigration has devastated the Black community, he constantly talks about how the Obama administration has been disastrous for Blacks and he has hired “real” Blacks and put them in positions of power.

Trump has substantively talked about the Black community more than the sum total of the 16 candidates he defeated. Yes, you heard me correctly.

Trump’s national spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, is all over TV speaking on behalf of the campaign. The visual of a Black female being the face of a presidential campaign is unprecedented and very powerful. Neurosurgeon and former presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, is leading Trump’s vice presidential search; I can’t recall a Black ever serving in this position for any other Republican nominee.

The Republican Party has no Blacks that ever speak for the various entities listed above, so please don’t get mad when the Democrats label our party as racist; visually and optically, we are; on policy, not so much.

Democrats and Republicans are trying to brand Trump as racist, sexist, and a xenophobe. If these claims are true, I hope he continues to live up to those characterizations; because if he does, he will be sworn in as the 45th president of these United States.

If you don’t believe what I am saying, maybe you will believe one of Trump’s long-time employees, Lynne Patton. This video says it all.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Why Do We Believe These Pathological Liars? by B.K. Marcus

/in , , , , /by

How do you feel when someone lies to you?

It probably depends on who is doing the lying. A stranger’s fabrications may not phase you, but dishonesty from a friend or lover can end the relationship. The more you feel the liar is supposed to be “on your side,” the more his or her deceptions feel like betrayal — unless, it turns out, the lies come from a politician you support.

When I shared a link on Facebook to Rick Shenkman’s article “Why Are Trump Voters Not Bothered by His Lies?” someone immediately replied by asking, “Why are Hillary voters not bothered by her lies?” Why, in other words, focus on only one mendacious candidate when lying to voters seems like a prerequisite for running for office?

Shenkman, who is the editor of HistoryNewsNetwork.org and the author ofPolitical Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, might respond with his claim that Trump “has told more lies than any other leading political figure probably ever has.” But his article is in fact about neither Trump’s astonishing number of fibs nor his supporters’ astonishing tolerance for them; it is about how widespread both such lying and such tolerance are across party lines and throughout the era of mass-media mass democracy.

Shenkman is writing for a left-leaning readership, thus his headline’s righteous indignation toward a right-wing candidate, but most of the examples he gives are of deliberately deceitful Democrats. He starts with candidate Kennedy’s campaign claim that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the United States:

He continued to insist that there was a missile gap to the Soviet’s advantage even after he was briefed by General Earl Wheeler that there wasn’t. After the election his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, told the press on background that a study had found there was no missile gap, leading to blaring headlines the next morning.

JFK’s reaction? He ordered his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, to tell the media that there had been no study and that there was a gap. The truth was that JFK himself didn’t take his own rhetoric about the missile gap seriously. At cabinet meetings he cracked on numerous occasions, “Who ever believed in the missile gap” anyway?

Four years later, President Johnson “told the American people that the North Vietnamese were guilty of making repeated unprovoked attacks on [US] naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf.” As with Kennedy, we know that Johnson was being dishonest, not mistaken. “Hell,” LBJ told an aide, “those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

Shenkman barely touches on Nixon’s perfidy in Watergate and never mentions Nixon aide John Ehrlichman’s 1994 interview, admitting that the war on drugs was not about crime or health but was rather a politically motivated attack on war protestors and American blacks. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs?” said the president’s former domestic affairs advisor. “Of course we did.”

And while he may have given Ms. Clinton a pass, Shenkman does mention the millions of supporters who refused to believe the allegations against her husband “until prosecutors revealed they possessed [Monica Lewinsky’s] infamous blue dress.”

No one should be shocked by the frequency of politicians’ duplicity, but it is frustrating when a candidate is caught in an undeniable falsehood and his or her supporters never waiver.  Our political culture expects politicians to perjure and prevaricate left and right, but that doesn’t make their deceptions defensible. So where is the outrage?

“Our brains are partisan,” Shenkman writes:

While we are quick to seize on the misstatements of other candidates, we give them a pass when it’s our own. When the social scientist Drew Westen put voters in an MRI machine he discovered that their brains quickly shut off the flow of information contrary to their beliefs about their favorite candidates. The neurons actively involved in the transmission of this information literally went inactive.

It’s not just the political candidates who are lying. So are the voters. “We lie,” Shenkman points out, “about our unwillingness to put up with lies.”

If politicians keep lying and voters keep shrugging it off, isn’t that an indictment of democracy? Aren’t voters supposed to act as a check on the people in power?

In theory, an election is supposed to be more than a popularity contest. Candidates are supposed to represent an approach to policy making, which is in turn supposed to reflect both facts and a theory of cause and effect. What we have instead is a formalized tribalism, us versus them, facts be damned.

Shenkman assures the reader that the liars don’t get away with it forever, but his evidence for that conclusion is questionable. Johnson and Nixon are remembered as liars by both Democrats and Republicans, but the reckoning for Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate are outliers in the steady stream of deception flowing out of DC and the state capitals. Meanwhile, Mssrs Kennedy and Clinton will be remembered more for deceiving their wives than the voters.

Westen’s research on cognitive dissonance and party politics is troubling, but well before there was any hard data on how voters process unwanted facts, the theory of rational ignorance told us why so many facts are so unwanted: to the individual voter, the cost of acquiring the relevant knowledge far outweighs the practical benefits of knowing the truth when casting a ballot.

In contrast, the benefits of supporting a candidate accrue, not from any actual effect on the electoral outcome, but largely from the signaling that it provides the voter: this is the sort of person I am, and these are the sorts of causes I support. Symbolic affiliation isn’t dependent on the truth of any particular facts, so why should we expect inconvenient falsehoods to change anyone’s political alignment?

As I wrote in “Too Dumb for Democracy?” (Freeman, spring 2015), “getting an issue like the minimum wage terribly wrong takes no work and has the immediate payoff of feeling like you’re on the side of the angels. It also solidifies your standing within your own ideological tribe. Bothering to understand supply and demand … offers no practical reward after you pull the lever in the election booth.”

The lies we care the least to uncover are precisely those for which the cost of caring outweighs the benefits of our vigilance. That describes almost anything we may ever be asked to vote on. But when knowing the truth directly matters to the decisions we make every day — the truth about our jobs, our homes, our families and loved ones — the relative benefits of knowing the truth are far greater, and we therefore penalize the liars in our lives. Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to accepting hard truths, but even cognitive dissonance is price sensitive.

The more decisions we cede to the political process, the less we should expect anyone to protect our interests. Even we don’t bother to do it, because the rules of the game — majority rules — render our efforts ineffectual. Worse than that: we’re not even rewarded for knowing what policies really are or aren’t in our best interest.

The truth can win out, but it’s a lot less likely in an election.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

Epic Failure: Hillary’s ‘Smart Diplomacy/Smart Power’ Foreign Policy

/in , , , , /by

Hillary Clinton implemented a “smart power” approach to foreign policy and international diplomacy as Secretary of State to harness, as she called it, “American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”  She defined “smart power” as a combination of strategies and tools – including diplomatic, economic, political, legal, cultural and military coalitions as a last resort – in unique combination as defined for each situation. Clinton’s “smart power” approach modernized American diplomacy for the 21st century, rebuilt America’s standing in the world, better engaged technology and led to tangible, lasting results. – Correct The Record

But is America’s standing in the world better?

Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearing to become President Obama’s Secretary of State made these statements:

  1. “I use the phrase smart power “because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”
  2. “For me, smart power meant choosing the right combination of tools – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural – for each situation.”
  3. “The objectives of using a smart-power approach and rebuilding America’s standing meshed perfectly.”

obama-and-clinton1The epic failure of Obama’s smart diplomacy/smart power foreign policy implemented by Hillary Clinton is due to the existing Countering Violent Extremism doctrine. As Robert Spencer notes:

“Obama’s CVE policies were developed in 2011 specifically at the demand of U.S. Muslim groups. Now, the very same Islamic groups that demanded CVE are some of its loudest opponents. They claim that the administration is promoting ‘Islamophobia’ through their programs.” They want no resistance to jihad terror at all — which should be revealing to the authorities who give them access and influence. But it isn’t.

“Having intentionally purged the DOD’s training of any ability to define the enemy, America’s top warriors admit they have lost any ability to identify, and then defeat, the enemy.”

Read more.

In this video Bill Little takes a look at how smart diplomacy/smart power has fared during the Obama administration. Of course Hillary was the person who “reset” America’s foreign policy. Listen to Little’s analysis:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry slams Trump’s wall, tells grads to prepare for ‘borderless world’

Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

U.S.-Funded Study: Mass Immigration from Mexico Ended, Border Enforcement Has Backfired

More Hillary Emails That Were Hidden From State Department Probe Uncovered

Clinton and Trump: Where to they stand on Islamism?

EDITORS NOTE: The adjusted featured image is courtesy of Correct The Record.

The GOP must play its Trump Card

/in , , /by

After Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer.

Now is the time for the GOP to play its Trump card.

Trump Indiana victory speech:

If the goal of the GOP is to take back the White House and keep a majority in both houses of Congress, the game is in their hands. The goal is to win! Trump has energized the American voters. His campaign is now an insurgency. The GOP cannot fear the insurgents, rather they must embrace them.

The insurgents are the American people.

Politicians no longer control the bully pulpit. The American people do. That is how the Republican Party has been fundamentally transformed over the past nine months. It is a new Republican Party, one with a broad base of support. One that is energized. One that is ready for change to bring back the hope of making America great again.

Trump won with his simple message – Americans first!

The GOP will be facing Hillary Clinton, a candidate that is flawed, the consummate politician and beholding to special interests. Trump is the exact opposite. He has never run for public office until now and for the highest seat in the land. He is not a politician and because he is self-funding, is beholding to none other than the American people.

This has been described as the “election  of the century.” In reality it is a “battle royal between the individualist and the collectivist.”

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

It appears the ideal of collectivism is alive and well. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. The new Collectivists are now in power. Obama has fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party. But this malaise can and must be reversed.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Donald Trump is contesting the absurdities that Americans have had to deal with for over one-hundred years. Trump is not politically correct, and the people love him for it. Trump hates the absurd. The greatest absurdity being that government is smarter than the individual.

That is the battle, that is the war, that is the conflict.

This war must be won at all cost. To do otherwise is to doom our children and grandchildren to a life of slavery under a tyrannical government.

Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana

/in , , /by

trump indianaThe Indiana Primary is today, and it’s in many ways the beginning of the end — one way or the other — of the #NeverTrump campaign.

A clean win for Cruz in the state is a win for the anti-Trump forces within the GOP, and a win for Donald J. Trump is a massive setback and potential death knell for the forces opposing the real estate magnate.

According to FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast based on nine polls, Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning the statewide vote.

Click here to veiw the odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.

EDITORS NOTE: FiveThirtyEight forecasts don’t produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown here. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. The FiveThirtyEight estimate of each candidate’s chance of winning the state is based on these ranges.

Trump Campaign Dismisses America First Controversy

/in , , /by

George Santayana’s careworn expression may be invoked yet again over the meme adopted in Trump’s first Foreign Policy speech delivered at the Center for National Interest (CNI) in Washington, DC on Wednesday April 27, 2016. America First.  Santayana said: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Trump in his CNI speech issued his emphatic clarion call to the remaining primary voters across America:

It’s time to shake the rust off America’s foreign policy. It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold, something we have to do. The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be.That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

He did have this welcomed comment on Israel:

Israel, our great friend and the one true democracy in the Middle East has been snubbed and criticized by an administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel, a force for justice and peace, for acting as an impatient peace area in the region.

That gave rise to criticism by the ADL’s Greenblatt cited in a Ha’aretz article:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged Trump to reconsider the phrase Thursday citing its “anti-Semitic use in the months before Pearl Harbor by a group of prominent Americans seeking to keep the nation out of World War II.”

According to a statement released by the Jewish watchdog, the most prominent leader of the “America First Committee” was Charles Lindbergh, who “sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes, including assertions that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government.”

Nonetheless, ADL chief Jonathan A. Greenblatt said “the undercurrents of anti-Semitism and bigotry that characterized the America First movement … are fortunately not a major concern today.”

“However, for many Americans, the term ‘America First’ will always be associated with and tainted by this history,” he said, adding that “in a political season that already has prompted a national conversation about civility and tolerance, choosing a call to action historically associated with incivility and intolerance seems ill-advised.”

For those of us old enough to have some knowledge of the isolationist anti-Semitic American First movement championed by Hitler admirer, Charles Lindbergh, who was given a personal award by Der Fuhrer for his aviation exploits, Trump’s use of it was jarring.

When I read the transcript of his speech, I asked a source in the Trump campaign about Dr. Walid Phares, one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, who I knew personally from a decade of interaction including co-hosting radio shows on common subjects dealing with the Middle East, Israel and Jihad. I asked whether he had written Trump’s  America First speech. The answer was,” no.”  instead  I was directed to Phares’ Fox News opinion article that purports to lay out Trump’s foreign policy vision. There was no America First meme presented in his discussion. Lots of suggestions on changes in the traditional Americans alliances, prevention of Iran getting the nuclear weapon, that it may already possess, getting our allies in the NATO alliance to ante up the required annual defense budget allotments, dealing with ISIS and its global affiliates and the Muslim Brotherhood both here and abroad. Phares’ ringing conclusion:

A new popular majority is sweeping the country during these primary elections and another greater national current will legitimize these new principles with the election of Donald Trump as president in November. These new foreign policy directions will have a deeply informed public backing them, so that President Trump can muster the energies of the American people to create a sustainable defense, encompassing clear objectives coupled with a strong international presence.

Now more than ever, confident American leadership is vital for a world in disarray.

The meme of new policy directions figured prominently in a PBS News Hour  discussion on the merits of Trump’s Foreign Policy speech with Phares and former State Department official, now Hoover Institute scholar, Nicholas Burns. Burns found what he deemed lots of contradictions in Trump’s CNI speech. Phares demurred saying it was really about replacing old worn out failed policies with new ones.

Watch the PBS News Hour interview with Phares and Burns.

Phares was interviewed by Steve Inskeep of NPR’s Morning Edition. I have to issue a disclaimer on my part. I had found NPR’s news biased against Israel back in 2003. I participated in coordinating a national one day protest against NPR local affiliates in more than 40 locations, including the one I led in Connecticut. That led to a series of abrupt exchanges with the VP for News at the DC headquarters for several weeks following that protest. Notwithstanding, my attention was drawn to the transcript of NPR interview with Phares. Inskeep of NPR pressed  Phares on what Trump’s speech was all about with alleged contradictions upending the old policies in favor of new directions.  Phares pushed back on that until the inevitable occurred. Inskeep asked him about the American First meme as it brought memories of the pre-WWII American Firster isolationists led by Lindbergh. Here is the transcript exchange:

INSKEEP: Dr. Phares, one other thing. And we’ve just got about 30 seconds here. He uses this phrase, America First. It’s got a particular historical resonance. He’s borrowing a phrase that was used by people who opposed U.S. Involvement against Germany in World War II – 1939, 1940, 1941. Very, very briefly, is there a message here?

PHARES: If you are criticizing Mr. Trump, you will find all the bad connections.  He is very optimistic, and he is very positive none of these sentences that he pronounces go back to dark ages or go back to negative aspects at all.

I returned to the Campaign source and asked about that history. The response:

“America First” is a simple phrase that Mr. Trump uses to describe his approach to all aspects of American relations with the world, including trade, immigration and national defense. Under President Trump, the interests of the American people will be paramount. Putting it in the old category of the isolationists of the past who fought against American involvement in WWII is a mistake.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Video on Illegal Immigration — ‘No Documents Needed’

/in , , , , , /by

Wayne Dupree in his column “No Documents Needed’ — This EPIC video on illegal immigration must be shared!” writes:

This Christian organization named “America Working” has put together one of the best videos to slam our lawmakers for not providing action to stop illegal immigration.

It starts out by telling you the viewer: No Action = Guilty Action

The video was put together very well and goes so much further in-depth on issues many of you probably never thought of.

Read more.

Watch “No Documents Needed”:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Buffalo, NY: Something fishy in Somali tale of woe

Heads-up Aberdeen, South Dakota! New resettlement site being proposed

Somalis arriving at the rate of 750 a month right now; will it ever end?

The Ted Cruz Canadian Citizenship — A New Look

/in , , , , /by

The eligibility of Ted Cruz has been and is still being called into question.   The question will never be answered until it gets answered either by supposition, or by the courts.  Plus, these questions were brought to bear in the 1800s and decided by the Supreme Court during that 100 year period.

In this paper, I am going to try something different in presenting this case of the eligibility of Ted Cruz, by introducing this paper with some paragraphs from The Presidency Manifesto of Ted Cruz:

“If I were to be elected as your President, it would not be according to how it should be but would be according to how it became with the unconstitutional election of Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro.  You see, I, like him, am not a ‘a natural born citizen’ as the Constitution requires of a President.”

“I was not born as a natural citizen of the United States of America because my father was a Cuban national (living in exile due to his opposition to the policies of Fidel Castro and his communist government) just as Barack Obama was not a natural citizen because his father was a subject of the British government, – being governed, along with his children, by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”

“But not being ‘a natural born citizen’ did not keep his party from illegitimately nominating him to be their presidential candidate…”  “Well as they say… two can play that game…” – Written by Adrien Nash as Ted Cruz (November 2014)

These paragraphs are essentially true as it pertains to birth place and the term “natural born citizen”.  The writer laid out Ted Cruz’s ineligibility by equating it to President Obama with the exception of stating that Ted Cruz openly stated he was born in Calgary, Canada.

According to Rafael Cruz, in 1970, when Ted Cruz was born in Canada, Cruz Senior stated that they lived in Canada for at least four years and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under the Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws.  Rafael Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2005.  His wife and son were still Canadian citizens (Politicalconundrum, 2015).

Prior to the Cruz family moving to the United States in 1974, Eleanor and Raphael Cruz appeared on the “Urban Preliminary List Of Electors” (Atkinson, 1974).  To vote, one must be a citizen and during an interview with NPR, Cruz stated, he and Eleanor are Canadian citizens.

The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, or commonly called, “Act of 1947”.  This Act fully defines him as a Canadian citizen.  Parliament, later replaced the Act of 1947 with The Citizenship Act, February 1977.  The Citizenship Act also recognized, “dual citizenship”.  If the situation was more of an ideal situation, the best Ted Cruz could get is dual citizenship.  According to Cruz Senior, both Eleanor and he were Canadian citizens the year Ted Cruz was born.  The end result, this “The Citizenship Act” does not apply to Ted because he is a natural born Canadian.

People have been searching the Delaware, Department of Health database for Ted Cruz’s mother and they are finding a “no record exists”.  The reason why Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz birth certificate in Delaware does not exist is because there is no birth certificate for this name.  On Line 2, full name of child: Eleanor Darragh.  On Line 31, the father verified baby Eleanor, by writing Eleanor Darragh.  Using any other search string will not yield any results for Eleanor Darragh.

According to the Chart, Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories, as indicated in the USCIS Policy Manual does not apply.  If Eleanor Cruz had maintained her US citizenship, then the chart would apply.  Also, based on The Three Legged Stool Test… the first leg, to be a natural born citizen, the person must be born of US Parents.  The second leg, is the father must be natural born, or naturalized and the third leg, the mother, is the same as the second leg (Kerchner, 2013).  This test fails at every question asked.

While courts are deciding in Ted Cruz’s favor, the lower courts are not paying attention to the Supreme Court’s decisions on citizenship.  There have been four decisions in the 1800s that has settled the natural born citizenship challenges.  Although, the SCOTUS did not specifically say “natural born citizen”, they have supplied a definition what a natural born citizen is.  These four cases were:

  • The Venus, 12 U.S. Cranch 253 253 (1814)
  • Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
  • Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Covering each one briefly, one will notice how closely these decisions are made.

The Venus (1814)

Justice Livingston quoted from the book, Law of Nations, specifically, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.  “The citizens are members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages”.  “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

Shanks v. Dupont (1830)

“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country”.

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, …”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives or natural-born citizens, …”

With the basis of these Supreme Court decisions, the written conclusion as stated by the unknown author at Four Winds 10 – Truth Winds:  “In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.  (June 2011)

The Calvin Case, 7 Coke Report states, “… for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, …”  (Roland, 2016).  George Bancroft in 1884, characterized the debate on qualifications for the Presidency, … “that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, should be eligible to the office of president, …”  The numerous colonies in the 1600s and 1700s were using the language of “natural-born”.  (Roland, 2016)

While eligibility challenges are ongoing, Jerome R. Corsi (2016), penned an article, Eligibility challenges heat up for Cruz, Rubio.  The argument in question is that Mary Brigid McManamon argued that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president, whereas, John C. Eastman argued that Ted Cruz is eligible.  Eastman was referencing the bill that was passed in 1790.  This bill was later replaced in 1795.

During the research for this paper, there are a few things that need to be pointed out.  Most of this paper entailed reiterating what others have said.  This commentary should highlight the things necessary that proves Ted Cruz is not eligible for the Office of the Presidency.

Through articles and other documents, this research concludes that Ted Cruz, in fact, was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada as a “natural born citizen” without the inclines of dual citizenship.  Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz was in fact born in Wilmington, DE, but not under that name.  She was born with the name of Eleanor Darragh and her father verified the name by writing it on the birth certificate.

Most of the iterations in this paper primarily support each other, to include the Law of Nations stating that a child born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

Further investigation indicated Senator Ted Cruz has some very distinct problems he must resolve, yet, he can never be eligible for the Office of the President.  While many have heard and read this claim, they brushed it aside, due to information that has been missed, or purposely left out.

Too much weight has been placed on Eleanor’s birth certificate that would qualify him as a US Citizen.  The reality is Ted Cruz was never a citizen of the United States, or at the least a dual citizen; in fact it is neither.  His citizenship has always been Canadian.

There has been no Consulate Report of Birth Abroad, because neither parent could legally file one.  The argument tends to repeat itself because of the mother’s birth certificate.  It is true, she was born in Delaware, but that is far as it goes.

To qualify my statement that Ted Cruz is a “Natural born Canadian citizen”, an interview was conducted by National Public Radio (NPR) with Rafael B. Cruz, Ted’s father.  Referencing timeline, 1970, Rafael Cruz stated that he and Eleanor applied for and received Canadian citizenship under the Immigration and Naturalization laws.  Timeline, February, 2015, there is no evidence of US citizenship to confirm his true citizenship status.  Ted Cruz, by way of his father had been confirmed that he is a Canadian citizen.

What does this mean for Ted Cruz?  Let me place this as bullet points.

  • In 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
  • He is a resident alien.
  • He is illegally holding a political office as a Senator.
  • Since 2014, he has been a person without a country.
  • Ted Cruz’s family, specifically his children are not natural born citizens.

If we follow the decision that was handed down in the Shanks v Dupont (1830), if under age children follows the national character of their father, the children do not and cannot carry any part of their Canadian citizenship – even though Ted Cruz is half-Cuban – since their father renounced his Canadian citizenship.  It will be up to the mother to get these children naturalized to the United States.

Ted Cruz, when he discovered that he was still a Canadian, he needed to apply for citizenship to the United States.  The members of the US Senate will be well within their means to expel Ted Cruz from the senate due to his citizenship status.

In the final analysis, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.  He is not even a citizen of the United States.  The best category he can fit into is, resident alien.  Ted Cruz had sealed his records; birth records, family records.  The last question is where did Ted Cruz get his passport in 1986?  This may be an interest for someone who wants to dig a little deeper.

Democrats Panicking over Trump Turning America Red

/in , , , , /by

The Democratic National Committee sent out multiple emails after Donald Trump’s landslide victory in New York. It appears they fear him as the GOP nominee.

obama quote on trump

Image sent in DNC email with the statement, “And after Donald Trump’s huge victory in New York last night, one thing is clear. We CANNOT allow him to be our president.”

The DNC states:

Donald Trump just got one step closer to becoming the Republican nominee. Make sure we’re ready to beat him.

Donald Trump just won New York, and he’s closer than ever to securing the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States.

Which means his dangerous policy proposals — from mass deportations and banning Muslims from entering the country to punishing women for seeking abortions — are one step closer to becoming a reality.

The Democratic strategy is to focus on abortion, illegal immigration and increasing Muslim migration. However, these are three areas in which the majority of Americans side with Donald Trump.

In February 2016 Rasmussen, in its Immigration Update, reported that border control is still the top immigration priority for most voters.

A December 2015 Rasmussen report titled “Voters Like Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban” states:

Despite an international uproar and condemnation by President Obama and nearly all of those running for the presidency, Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims coming to the United States has the support of a sizable majority of Republicans – and a plurality of all voters.

new york temporary ban on muslims

New York voter poll on a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Gallop provides the below infographic showing 70% of Americans support controlling abortions in some or all circumstances:

gallop abortion infographic

Is the  DNC depending on the abortion, illegal alien and Muslim migration issues to win in November? It appears so. Their objective is to portray Trump as anti-women, anti-illegals and anti-Muslim. The voters, however, see these three issues differently.

As the primary process winds down, it looks more and more like Trump will be the GOP nominee. The DNC certainly thinks so, and it is using his name to raise campaign funds.

What does that tell you?

To view the current delegate count for the Democratic and Republican nomination for president click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Influencer2016: Who’s behind each candidate’s presidential campaign?

Morgan Stanley Government Relations: Election Outlook Report

Demographic and Economic Infographics of States Holding April 26 Primaries

VIDEO: Donald Trump’s Congressional Testimony on the 1991 Economic Depression

In the Market for Fetal Body Parts, a Baby’s Brain Sells for $3,340

EDITORS NOTE: The featured infographic of the states won by Donald Trump is courtesy of the DNC.

PODCAST: How to Win the Immigration Debate

/in , , , , /by

Below is a free Audiobook version of How to Win the Immigration Debate – Just click the download link next to share to save to your computer.

At a time when the negative consequences of our “broken” immigration system are clearly evident, this guide is a practical tool for engaging in the complex and at times controversial immigration debate.

With key facts, figures, and explicit responses at your fingertips, this valuable resource will prepare you for debunking the most common immigration fallacies and deceptive generalizations, and for making the case for true immigration reform.

ABOUT THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of concerned individuals who believe that our immigration laws must be reformed to better serve the needs of current and future generations.

With a support base that includes nearly 50 private foundations and over 250,000 diverse members and activists, FAIR is free of party loyalties and special interest connections.

For more than 35 years, FAIR has been leading the call for immigration reform by offering and advocating solutions that help reduce the harmful impact of uncontrolled immigration on national security, jobs, education, health care, and our environment.

Learn more.